The Tea Party’s ideological Balkanization is its Achilles’ heel and may enable the reelection of President Obama. That is the key lesson to take away from mixed reaction over Mitt Romney’s pick of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan for vice president.

Grassroots activists from disparate wings of the Tea Party have a variety of complaints about Ryan’s record. He’s voted for bailouts. He’s voted for stimulus. His proposed budget actually increases spending. The list goes on.

In a recent piece for Reason, Judge Andrew Napolitano warns that a Romney-Ryan administration would be a return to the era of George W. Bush. “The Bush years were bad for freedom,” he writes; “without them, we would not have had an Obama administration.”

The problem with such criticism is that it appears in a laboratory vacuum without regard to the context of an actual election with only two viable alternatives. It takes a sober mind to see the forest from the trees. But Tea Partiers who think contextually about a ticket that’s less than pure risk the ire of their ideological brethren.

Consider the example of Dave Nalle, national chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, an organization working within the Republican Party to steer it in a libertarian direction. Nalle addressed his fellow activists regarding the Ryan pick, lamenting Ryan’s record while nonetheless urging libertarians to score Romney’s choice as a win in the broader political context. He wrote:

From [the GOP establishment] viewpoint, selecting Ryan as the vice presidential candidate is an enormously bold move and a major concession to what their very limited worldview tells them are the concerns of the grassroots. Ryan is more fiscally conservative than they are comfortable with. He is more of an initiator and policymaker than they feel safe with. He’s effective enough that they find him somewhat threatening. From the establishment’s myopic point of view Paul Ryan is an absolute flame breathing radical. He may not seem that way in comparison to Ron Paul, but most of them are not even capable of understanding the ideological views which drive Ron Paul. They don’t take his views or the views of those who support him into consideration at all, because they dismiss them as aberrant and outside of the political mainstream.

The skill Nalle employs here is empathy, the ability to see things from the perspective of others without necessarily agreeing with them. It’s a skill far more activists need to develop, because it enables a clarity of both thought and action.

Far too many activists see the world only from their point of view, a comfortable bubble where the rightness of their arguments is self-evident and anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy. This fosters a kind of political rut where progressing a movement becomes extremely difficult. You can’t convince the uninitiated with claims of self-evidence, and you won’t bother to try if you write off everyone outside your clique as either hostile or ignorant.

With his ability to empathize with the GOP establishment, Nalle grasps the Ryan pick as most useful to his cause. Understanding that Romney has made a bold move from an establishment perspective enables an activist like Nalle to appreciate the opportunity that the pick presents.

After comparing the Ryan pick to a lame gift from a well-intentioned grandmother, Nalle concludes:

Ultimately, if we object to Ryan, if we raise the roof with outrage, [the GOP establishment is] sufficiently out of touch that they won’t understand and will just get confused and offended. If we accept their lame gift with a winning smile that makes them think they did the right thing, that makes them feel good about us and next time the gifts may be more generous and they’ll write us into the will and we will eventually inherit it all.

In less crude terms, rallying behind the imperfect Romney-Ryan ticket represents an investment of political capital with the potential to pay dividends for libertarians within the Republican Party. Embraced as allies, liberty activists will continue to gain positions of influence and leadership which may eventually translate to purer liberty candidates. That’s politics in a free society; you have to build relationships and coalitions with people you do not agree with 100%.

The chief impediment to such coalition-building is dogmatic ideological segregation. Many activists care more about advancing their system of philosophy (and vetting out the impure among their ranks through inquisitions) than about affecting change in the real world.

Consider the reaction in the Objectivist community to the enthusiastic endorsement of Romney-Ryan by the editor of The Objective Standard, Craig Biddle. Writing on the publication’s blog, Biddle explained how he could comfortably campaign for the GOP ticket despite the fact that neither Romney nor Ryan is an Objectivist:

For a politician to appreciate [Ayn] Rand’s ideas (even if he doesn’t fully understand them) and to extol them publicly is a welcome development. For the same politician to see entitlement programs as the main political problem throttling the U.S. economy—and to be willing and able to articulate why—is also welcome. For this same man to be selected as the vice presidential candidate on a viable ticket for the White House—when the alternative is an incumbent dedicated to destroying America—is as good a development as anyone could reasonably have hoped for today.

The focus here is context. “As good a development as anyone could reasonably have hoped for today” is a contextual standard which matters in the real world. Pining for an option which does not exist serves no rational purpose. As Rand and her philosophical forebear Aristotle made clear, we must deal with what is.

Bold Prediction: One of these guys is going to be elected president in November.

Nevertheless, many Objectivist commenters responded to Biddle’s endorsement with anything between trepidation and disgust. Chief among expressed concerns was a fear that endorsing a non-Objectivist would create confusion among the public as to what Objectivism is, as if extolling a particular philosophy is a more urgent concern than affecting any positive change in public policy.

Libertarians and Objectivists are cited here as examples. But the struggle within each community symbolizes similar battles throughout the Tea Party. Regardless of their ideological wing within the movement, Tea Party activists are letting their zeal for particular ideas eclipse an opportunity to advance their cause politically. Too many confuse political selection with philosophical compromise.

Voting in a presidential election for the less-bad ticket among two possibilities when those possibilities are the only viable alternatives, and when there is some value to be gained by voting for the less-bad alternative (e.g., more time to educate people about the moral foundations of freedom), is not pragmatism but an act of principle. It is the application of the principle that the purpose of voting in a presidential election is to help put into office the best (or least bad) team that can possibly be elected at the time. To refrain from voting when one of the only two viable alternatives is significantly worse [than] the other is to aid the worse ticket by withholding a vote for the less-bad one.

That’s the bottom line. There is a real choice to make which has real consequences, and we have a responsibility to make the best choice possible. To support the best of the viable options is not to compromise on principle, cede a moral argument, or give up our own particular philosophy. A political endorsement is not a philosophical endorsement, and voting for a particular candidate is not an affirmation of everything they have said or done.

Our choice is between a ticket sympathetic to liberty and a ticket diametrically opposed to it. The fractured Tea Party must unite on its common interest, or fail when it is needed most.

112 Comments, 46 Threads

1.
some of my best friends

You won’t get an accurate read on the tea parties until well into September at the earliest (IMO, much later), so give it up until then. Oh, and for the ten millionth time, stop referring to the Tea Party. It may help your head clear.

sombf hit the nail squarely on the head: there is no Tea Party! There are hundreds of tea party organizations, working hard in their own areas for limited government; fiscal responsibility; constitutional integrity; and a strong national defense. Apparently the author has chosen to overlook the fundamental principle of this movement, perhaps in an attempt to claim to speak for more than his own group.

I do not remember participating in a vote to allow The North Star Tea Party Patriots or their spokesman to speak for our local organization.

Amen! The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. Why? Because the perfect never arrives this side of Heaven.

Tea parties need to learn incrementalism. Get what you can when you can. Then demand more. But get the compromise first. Copy the islamist negotiation pattern: demand everything, take a resonable compromise, then immediately demand more, and so on until you have what you want.

The good alone is not acceptable. The good striving for better is what is needed and is therefore desired. Romney fits that. By the by, the Tea Party is the mortal enemy of the Democrats within the Republican Party.

This is probalby the main point. Additionally, I look upon it this way, no person matches my view 100%, I try to find the person who matches best. In primaries, I vote all the way for that person. In generals, I usually don’t vote 3rd party because of lack of chance, so I restrict it to the main parties, but I still apply the same idea. Guy A 10% similar, Guy B25%… I don’t like that, but Guy B is better than guy A…..

In a recent piece for Reason, Judge Andrew Napolitano warns that a Romney-Ryan administration would be a return to the era of George W. Bush. “The Bush years were bad for freedom,” he writes; “without them, we would not have had an Obama administration.”

Ok, but I remember when Napolitano was standing in for Bill O” Reilley after O’ Reilley said after meeting Obama “I like him” all the while swooning. Napolitano did the same thing while standing in for O’Reilley. Shut up Judge!! You guys knew of his past associations and tendencies but overlooked it just the same. At least Romney/Ryan seem to have a moral code they follow, Obama not so much.

According to Napolitano, Napolitano would be the only candidate who has enough fidelity to the Constitution to be a good President. Napolitano is a showman first and foremost. His schtick is being a Constitutional authority. ABO2012

Once upon a time there was a man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town. The report said that the whole town should evacuate immediately. But the man said, “I’m religious, I pray. God loves me. God will save me.” But the waters began to rise. A man in a rowing boat came along and he shouted. ‘Hey! Hey you! You up there. The town is flooding. I can take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back: “I’m religious, I pray. God loves me. God will save me.” A helicopter came hovering overhead. A guy with a megaphone shouted. ‘Hey! You there! The town is fully flooded. Let me drop down a ladder and I will help you to safety.’ But the men shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God would take him to safety. The man then drowned. When he got to the pearly gates of St Peter, he demanded an audience with God. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘I’m a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?’ God said, ‘I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowing boat. What on earth are you doing here?’

I’m pretty damn sure Obama is the flood, Romney is the boat and Ryan is the helicopter.

If some so-called members of the Tea Party movement are too dense or too stubborn to see the difference between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan (whatever their faults, real or imagined) then they need to go back into political slumber and stay away from the voting booth (and sharp objects). There’s always a choice even if, in American politics, it’s often between bad and worse.

“members of the Tea Party movement are too dense or too stubborn to see the difference between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan”
Not me. I know the difference. Obama is the liberal, big-government democrat and Romney is the liberal, big-government republican. (All the conservatives were weeded out of the republican ticket in an effort to get the liberals to like us.)

It’s so strange to read through a blog post and a list of comments that demand that I agree with Republican Progressives, all the while insulting me. The remainder of the quote you just posted is a perfect example:

“…then they need to go back into political slumber and stay away from the voting booth (and sharp objects).”

So, I’m dense, stubborn, should go back to sleep, avoid sharp objects (presumably because I’m childish or mentally disabled), and I shouldn’t vote. Yet, I SHOULD be a “good Republican” and do what the Progressives say to do.

The Tea Party, the individuals who live in America who believe in the movements 3 key platform planks, is not fractured.

The Tea Party, the “groups who claim to speak for a decentralized movement”, can’t quite decide if it wants to be independent, or Progressives with an eye toward militarily aggressiveness.

You can see quite clearly by davidinvirginia’s comment that he believes himself to be above the rest of us. He wants to dictate to us, while belittling us, how to think and behave.

Is davidinvirginia supportive of independent thinking and free action? Doesn’t seem that way. davidinvirginia doesn’t seem to be someone who supports the core principles in the Constitution. davidinvirginia seems more like a Progressive Socialist elite, but so does Walter Hudson.

Quit worrying. The Romney Ryan ticket has the support of most tea party people keeping in mind that this term covers many types of conservatives. The main thing to remember is that conservatives have good reason to be cautious and sketptical of the republican party. No more will we accept the notion that vote republican actually means something. It does not and the party has a long way to go in restoring it’s credibility. However our first misssion is to save teh country and to do this it means defeating Obama so that is the first order of business. If God takes pity on us and we win this election, well we roll back the clock and start to see how the team measures up. If they go back to big spending as usual, then the next war will be to oust the imposters until we get people in congress who will restore the people to constitutional government. So what does this mean in real terms? Probably slightly different depending on what good people you talk to but it means to me four basic themes 1. A balanced budget within two years (They mainlined $1 trillion of spending in 1 year, we should roll back the spending to 2008 levels. Yes we can 2. Specifically cutting government programs in total, laying of government workers to do the above 3. No earmarks 4. No government subsidies and restoring the free market 4. Restoration of bush era tax rates.

That is not all but it is a start. If they go off on a tangent, then we start the fight all over again until we get our government under control and the people get their country back.

Well said, Tommy. As a conservative, I am frustrated by the Republican party, and see it as still eroding our freedoms – just slower than the Democratic party. However, the prospect of another four years of Obama is so bad that this Tea Partier will vote for Romney and then work to promote adherence to constitutional authority. It’s important to note that on many issues (economic, security, energy, etc.) I do agree with Mr. Romney, and I love what Ryan has to say about health care and such – but do disagree on others. On balance, vote for Romney. Anybody sitting on the sidelines is promoting Obama’s agenda….

You’re exactly right. The 2010 election was a restraining order on Obama. When Romney gets in THEN the real work will begin. You hold his feet to the fire through regional influence by local representatives; -aka- getting involved politically at the local level!

Don’t wait for someone else to take up the responsibility. Getting involved locally will also improve your self worth.

Well said Tommy, thank you. I get real tired of reading articles about the mind set of the Tea Party by those who haven’t a clue. We may not have all supported Romney in the primaries but the dye has been cast and now the number one objective is to get Obama out, period.

Tommy.. I for one think this “splintering” of the TP movement is a manufactured story. Another point, as you probably know, it’s estimated that about 30 million folks attended TP assemblies or town hall meetings leading up to the 2010 elections. Those elections resulted in 89 freshmen congressional reps heading to D.C. Our skepticism of the Republican party is diminishing with each election as we are changing it from within. I’m curious as to how many more seats we’ll pick up this November.

Tommy is right–this is nonsense. Those of us who went to DC in Sept 2009 are Americans–the awakened giant. Sure we will vote for anybody but Obama but we also are well aware that both parties are insidiously corrupt and complicit in the destruction of our beloved country.

Ayn Rand herself was a purist. In an interview with Tom Snyder a way long time ago she railed against the religious right as part of the conservative movement–saying that their interests would doom our free market economy by mixing church and state.

Tea Party members know full well what’s at stake. We won’t have a dime left in the bank if this thing goes sour in November-we’re stuck taking Obama’s handouts. The luckier conservatives/liberals will take their monies and flee. Stop trying to plug us in to one socket. Most of us are hemmoraging our savings and 401K’s trying to keep our college graduates afloat until they can find work. We despise socialism in all its forms. We will go to the mat to defend our country. I also despise people who try and define the ‘indefinite’ tea party. Let the tea partiers write the damn articles.

Exactly!
In 2010 the Republican Party assured the Tea Party that “They’d Learned Their Lesson.”
Then, in February 2011 we saw that the Lesson the Republicans learned was 1995.

The Problem is, the lesson we wanted them to learn was 2006!

(1995 was the forerunner of 2006 when Bob -Let’s Make a Deal- Dole pulled the rug out from under the house and made the Republicans in the House look bad in the budget confrontation with Clinton. It led directly to what would eventually happen in 2006.)

Please tell me that it is not true! I find myself in accord with the Tea Party as a movement of protest against massive overspending, massive centralization, and massive welfarization. Overspending was, I believe, the point of departure.

It now seems that the “libertarians”, some reflective like Judge Napolitano, and now others co-opted by the amateur philosophers (and I say that as a professional philosopher) of Ayn Randian “objectivism” (which radicalizes Tea Party objections to overspending, etc. into a quasi-natural theology) are demanding the purification of the American world from ALL that stains its purity. The blindness amazes me. Thomas Woods, an apparent libertarian and scholar at the Mises Institute has written a freigthening book “Who Killed the Constitution?”. The Constitution which Napolitano honors is in the words of his friend and colleague, Woods, DEAD!!! In that framework, any attempts, however limited, to breath some life, some restrictions, some sound economic policies contra Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America should be welcomed. O.K., Ron Paul did not make it! Why not follow Paul and support the defeat of the Remaker? –Tell me that it is not true.

Actually, I don’t know any Tea Party members who would willing support Obama/Biden this fall. None. Everybody that I know understands that voting for Obama would be a disaster for this country, so the only real option is to vote for Romney/Ryan. Is Romney the best conservative out there? No, but he’s a heck of a lot better than Obama could ever hope to be. As the Marines like to say, “What we have is what we got,” and what we’ve got is Romney. And I would take Romney ANY day over a second Obama term.

Electing Tea Party conservatives is a process. It will not happen overnight. People like Rand Paul and Allen West get elected, but you can’t expect to fill an entire Congress with them in only four years. I think we’ve made tremendous progress in both the House and the Senate and we stand to make even more in 2012. We are gradually pulling the Republican Party away from the RINOs and making it more conservative. I consider that a success. So we keep on working until, one day, the Republican Party returns to its conservative roots. Romney/Ryan is a first big step in that direction. But if you just sit home and allow Obama to get re-elected, that just hurts the country and our cause. I would rather have Ryan charting the fianacial future of this country rather than someone like Obama. If Romney wins, we will at least be on our way to ultimate victory. And that ain’t bad.

Let’s not forget Gary Johnson. He may not get a great percentage of votes but he only needs to pull a few points in a close election to throw it to Barry. There are enough of the “righteously indignant” out there to make protest votes and potentially cause a sequel to the ’92 disaster.

OK I see myself more a Reardon guy than Galt. When I first read Atlas in the 70′s it was fiction, possibly fantasy like Lord of the Rings. Obama has brought it to life as very real and very scary.

Mitt as president has the possibility of really turning the ship around. It is a big ship with a lot of baggage, creaking gears, and barnicles on its hull. I would be quite happy if we got a 1/4 right turn out of this beast, instead of going headlong over the falls.

We need to get a decent crew ie congress and senate to ensure that this rust bucket gets back to port for a serious overhaul. Paul Ryan and his budget are a decent start. Yes it doesn’t go far enough, but it is the first budget plan in my life that gets the direction right. Newt’s Contract was more trench warfare than getting the policy right.

Obviously, Mr. Hudson, you would like very much for the Tea Party to be unorganized and irrelevant; too bad. The more dishonest ‘journalists’ like yourselves attempt to disguise your attempts at distraction through the milquetoast accolades you pretend to espouse, the stronger we become. Our anonymity is one of our largest advantages.

There is no need to go ’round and ’round on this, there is no dilemma after all. Just remember: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Obama and the Democrats have already had their pyrrhic victory (or have you been off somewhere, blind and deaf, for the last 4 years, not to know that?). Do you want to give them ANOTHER one? If you do, then shame on you(!) See how easy it is?

Again, Mr. Hudson, thank you for highlighting Objectivist views. You do a great service to the PJ Media community in doing so. It is not only the general public that needs to become acquainted with Rand’s philosophy, the conservative and libertarian audience needs more exposure as well.

Mr. Ryan, a self-described Thomist, is not an Objectivist, but he will enhance that effort by, at least, bringing PHILOSOPHY back into the public discussions. Miss Rand would undoubtedly be very pleased with the development even while voicing strong opposition with some of Ryan’s religious positions. Afterall, she gave Saint Thomas Aquinas credit for bringing Aristolean thinking and reason back into Western culture. Maybe Ryan will help do the same for American culture which is mired in a very Dark Age, indeed.

Seconded, and so moved (I hope). And all you Rand acolytes: You’ll go farther quoting Robert Heinlein, as just a particularly savvy guy, than you will quoting Ayn Rand, as the hotsy-totsy “Founder of a Movement”. The greater enemy is obedience to ANY dogma, any “movement”. Keep your skirts clean, and free.

Q: Who are you going to vote for in the presidential election ?
A: I want to vote for Bob La Follette, but I won’t get the chance.

It is time to take the bull by the tail and look the situation in the eye;
The world economy _is_ going to crater, sooner rather than later, maybe
when Greece defaults, and no sane voter wants to give Team Obama the
chance to take advantage of that crisis.

A dedication to a culture based upon an observational-based metaphysics, a reality-based epistemology, and a reason-based ethics is the exact opposite of obedience to a dogma. Read Rand for yourself instead of spreading the smears of others. No rational person who has seriously read Rand could interpret Objectivism as a dogma–no more than the scientific method is dogma for a scientists.

Uh, Dave … what are “observational-based metaphysics?” Do you have any references from Rand that actually use this phrase? I’m not the expert you are, but I’m wondering if “metaphysics” can be “observed.”

First, I am a student, not an expert on philosophy and Objectivism. Nevertheless, I will share my understanding of Objectivist metaphysics.

Metaphysics deals with the nature of existence. It defines the kind of world we live in. Is the world real, or is it a product of our consciousness? Is it a world of understandable natural laws or a world of inexplanable miracles? Are facts of reality absolute and non-changing or do they change with our perspective? Is it supernatural or is it real? These are metaphysical questions. Rand, following Aristotle says emphatically that the world is observable, knowable and understandable. It is the essense of being human to observe this world, understand its nature and use this understanding to enhance our lives.

Yes, the metaphysical world is real, observable and knowable. It exists and follows certain natural laws whether we, as humans, understand it or choose to understand it or not.

Exactly so. Let’s put out the fire in the house, we can argue about the color of the drapes later. If we don’t, there will be no house and no drapes either. Why do people allow their idea of the perfect to destroy a positive move towards the good, making the perfect the enemy of the good?

Every election, I look at those few third party percentage points to see whether they changed the outcome. Why would that part of the electorate stubbornly stay in a losing position? They are ideologues and prefer to live in their imaginary realm. For how many decades? Stop throwing your vote away, we are fighting for the survival of this great country where you can still express your views. If the other side gets in, you will be on their “to be silenced” list. It is truly not hard to understand.

The Romney/Ryan ticket isn’t perfect. But, perfect will never be nominated. And they are saying the right things. Drill for oil and get energy independent; build the Keyston Pipeline. Reduce regulations. Repeal and replace Obamacare, including its $700 Billion raid of Medicare funds. Tackle entitlements (although the plans are a bit tepid and long drawn out). Ryan even quotes that our Rights come from the Creator; not government. They are even talking education vouchers, if that doesn’t attract some minority voters, nothing will. Ryan discussed balanced trade; not free trade.

Quite frankly, I did not support Romney during the primaries. He was my last choice. But as a general election candidate, I’m getting more excited and there is NO OTHER CHOICE.

Agreed, if you live in CA, NY, IL, AL, SC sure you can vote for Gary Johnson and boast how you stood on principles. The Judge is a New Yorker and avid RP supporter and will only be happy with a full Libertarian Congress / President.

Many in the TP may not be happy with the choices but we will vote against POTUS and focus on Senate / House / Local seats. We know what is at stake and it will take more than one election cycle to turn towards smaller government…2010 was the first, 2012 next and then 2014 will be the time to get rid of Lindsey Graham and others. If O wins 2012, we are done so R/R it is for my vote.

I hope you are right! But I have listened to Judge Napolitano and allies. I am not sure that they will vote for the lesser of two evils. What interests me is the reasoning behind the Judge, namely, that Romney no less than Obama is not constitutional. He is right!!! Also, he is forgetful of the wisdom of his friend, Thomas Woods, namely of the fact that the “Constitution” as he wants it is DEAD! Certainly, there are no Constitutional grounds for enacting Social Security. But it has been there since 1935 and will not go away. (I could not survive wihtout it.) So, a smart political move would be to vote for someone what will try to reform Soc. Sec. or Med. Care so as to make the programs solvent and sustainable. This is heresy for the good Judge! If Tea Party-ers follow a purist line, the Obama line that will result will be mighty dirty. Your words soothe me, but not completely as purists voices are audible.

You are correct Mr. Ogletree. I’m amazed at how many people still have little knowledge of the Tea Party’s message:Fiscal responsibility, Limited Government and Free markets. I’m also amazed at how many “writers” are actively out to diminish the Tea Party.

Looking for and emphasizing fractures in support of Romney are not helpful.

Romney & Ryan are serious forthright men who live their respective faiths.
When they win their biggest obstacle will be to have the courage to fight the omnipresent MSM.

We are in dire need of tort, tax, healthcare, education, energy, labor(work rules, union & hiring), spending, immigration, welfare, environmental,law & order reforms to name a few.
With every spending cut there will be a cacophonous sound calling the cuts draconian and hurting the poor, women, children and minorities. The media will encourage riots and fan the flames of anarchy.
Their decisions will require true patriots to stand by R&R in their hour of need.

The media is our enemy and we should not support them or their sponsors.

Yes, you are so correct. Think of the media as a giant spotlight and the left’s ability to control where it is focused. If it harms conservatives, it’s in the spotlight. If it promotes abortion, it’s in the spotlight. If it’s Obama’s past and records, it’s NOT in the spotlight. If Romney’s tax returns aren’t available, put that in the spotlight too.

Well, this year it’s going to be “Spotlight on James Brown now, yeah yeah”. Obama has a record and when we can, we’ll push the light towards it. Still, it’s not fair that they control 90% of what gets ‘spotlighted’ and what doesn’t. This too can change but a pro-America/pro-capitalism media still seems a long way off. When THAT day comes, look out. You ain’t seen ‘morning in America’ like you will that day.

There is a reason that the last RINO the Republican party nominated to run for President against Obama lost.
I think it’s very possible that the RINO party has become too stupid to learn from their mistakes and of course these compromised fools will blame the tea party for their next defeat.
They want so much to be like the left wing of this ugly bird that they’ve gone insane.

He makes nations great, and destroys them…
He takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth,
And makes them wander in a pathless wilderness.
They grope in the dark without light, And He makes them stagger like a drunken man.
Job 12

Marcel.. After 8 years of Bush… two wars, troubled banks it would have been impossible to defeat the Left with ANY candidate. RINO or Not!… But take heart, we are slowly regaining the heart and soul of the GOP.

Ryan voted for TARP, wars on credit card, GM bailout, raising the debt limit… and his ‘budget’ is a joke that doesn’t cut anything of substance and relies on rosy predictions of income that will do NOTHING to prevent the financial disaster we are headed for.

Every Sunday I meet up with some very old friends for coffee and to talk politics. It’s an interesting group ranging from serious conservatives to people so left they think Obama is too conservative. We came up with something that explains why McCain lost and Romney will too.

The Republican Party is split on what kind of candidate should be running for President. Some in the party want a moderate to attract independents and moderates. Others want a hardcore conservative to advance an agenda and appeal to conservative principals. Rather than choose one or the other though, the party seems to insist on nominating a moderate (McCain and Romney) then force them to adopt a more conservative stance than they normally would. So we get McCain condemning McCain/Feingold and Romney promising to repeal Romneyca….oops, Obamacare.

The idea is that the fact that these people are moderates will get independents and moderates while their born-again conservatism will appeal to the base. The problem is that moderates hear the born-again conservatism and it puts them off. The conservatives, on the other hand, know that these guys are really RINOs and the conservative talk is insincere. Thus, while the party is trying to please everyone they end up pleasing nobody.

Personally, I have decided that although Romney has nothing to appeal to me (yes, he’s not Obama, but you can say that about anybody) I will vote for him anyway. I’ll hold my nose and vote for the insincere RINO that will say anything to get elected. I will not be volunteering, but I haven’t done much of that for the last 20 years anyway. I will not be contributing to the campaign this time (let Mitt pay for it himself). I will not be putting a sign up (I never use bumper stickers) but I will be voting for the louse. I would rather be voting for somebody I thought would be serious about balancing the budget, but let’s face it, nobody is serious about balancing the budget including Ryan.

If the Tea Party is a grassroots movement they can make up their own minds about Romney/Ryan (I know what they think of Obama/Biden already). If the Tea Party is a bunch of useful idiots who need to be led by the nose I expect to see a lot more articles like this before election day. I am not a Tea Partier so I’ll leave them to make up their own minds.

Yes.. much to my shame, I and millions others voted for Ross and gave the election to Clinton… I use that example all the time to the Paulettes and Johnson followers… but it’s falling on deaf ears. Perhaps this article will be “my fodder for the cannon”..

So, the Establishment, Inside the Beltway, Can’t we all Just Get Along & Reach Across the Aisle, Bi-partisan Republican leadership sees a VP candidate who says that we need a realistic budget and then live to that budget as a RADICAL choice.

No wonder that Boo-Hoo and Mitch think that things are just fine while they enable the Dems to drive the country off a cliff

Exactly which of your freedoms did George Bush take from you? When you answer that, I will give anything you have to say credence (however little). Until then, you’re just one tare amongst the wheat. (Or should I say one more turd in the pile?)

Obama is a guillotine to the head of America. The quick path to the death of America. Romney/Ryan is death by a thousand paper cuts. We’ll still be dead, but it will be not so horrific in concept and will be much slower with less flailing and screaming.

I have been a Tea Party person from day one of their origin. Let me agree with other T members on this page: we will back Romney-Ryan to get rid of the commie, then we will keep on cleaning house until we get things back in order for this country. And that could mean Romney, Ryan, or anyone else who does not work for the good of the American people. We are not going away.

Now that’s encouraging. You would think Romney can win PA and other coal states just by pounding energy policies and exposing POTUS for the coal plant shutdowns, rising energy costs and lost jobs to solar / wind cronies. Keep us posted on PA.

I, a conservative Democrat, will vote against Obama for the same reasons I voted against him last time: energy (my expertise), abortion (I am Catholic), and competency (I spent decades in management). I have read Romney’s white paper on energy. It is no where as good as Palin’s, but she (an expert in energy policy) is not running. IMHO, if her voice was an octave lower, and she weighed 100 pounds more, she might have garnered more votes and we would be coming out of a disastrous energy cost-driven depression. She has forgotten more about energy policy than Obama-Biden ever learned. But McCain admitted, as the economy tanked, that economics was not his forte. So we got Obama. The issue: America either uses lots of carbon, and uranium, or our advanced nation will cease to exist.

Romney understands business. Ryan wants to cut government spending and red tape. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for leadership. If Iran evaporates Tel Aviv, we have no one up to the task. The Army and Marine Corps are spent, in equipment and spirit. They need some one who knows what to do, how to end the war with honor. They are led by bureaucrats.

Based on reality, a nation in decline and getting worse, this election should be building into a land slide. It is not. Why? Because of the caliper of people we sent to Washington, since ??? 1975, the end of our last big war. There are very few Americans left who remember that we pulled together and won a war.

Abortion policy has been fouled up for so long that it should not be a factor in this election. However it is. Why? A stupid SC decision. I, a religious person, judge it is homicide. Others disagree. I, an American, judge the conflict should be resolved by the states, in accordance with our Constitution. But our current crowd thinks that is a dead letter, we are a nation of men, not laws.

Reviewing the cards, I would vote to shut down Washington D.C., move to Kansas, and start over, with folks who are used to working for a living.

I will vote for Romney, or sleep in. America, not the Tea Party, is a fractured movement.

I didn’t know there was a major contingent in the Tea Party upset with Ryan. As the author notes, Ryan is the best to be hoped for. Futher, Ryan’s plan is likely not the best HE would have liked — just the best presently implementable and so settles for nudging things in a better direction. There is nothing unprincipled about dealing with reality and trying to move the ball from where it is — not where we wish it were. That is how statism has be foisted on us — incrementally over more than a century. Absent some kind of convulsion, it will take a long time — with gains and losses — to walk it back. As with the great cathedrals that were constructed over generations, it is up to us to do our part in the mission of recovering lost liberty. And it is a mission. We must do what we can to hand on a baton that has been advanced toward that goal.

Judge Napolitano, God bless him, is NOT representative of the tea party. He’s a fire-breathing libertarian, probably more purist than even Ron Paul.

The “Tea Party” is not a consistent and uniform constituency. It is MAINLY a center right group that wants sincere control of the growth in the Federal Government, a roll-back of the Obama-era power grabs in both the Health Care and Energy sectors. As a group, it is LESS focused on gay and abortion social issues (ie. somewhat more libertarian) than are other Republicans. It is NOT correct to call this movement Libertarian with a capital “L” as the primary results of Ron Paul clearly show. The Tea Party has showed great power as a political force, but not enough to overcome the negatives of single-minded Social Issues conservatives (to wit, Colorado’s Ken Buck lost his Senate Race, Nevada’s Sharon Angle lost against Prince Harry Reid, Lisa Murkowsky won in Alaska, and the witchy girl from Delaware losing to a moderate Republican, four races which could have given Republicans a majority in the Senate.)

Put abortion, gay, and women’s issues away. This is not the time to fight those fights. This is the time for a smaller Federal government, for a higher and more reasonable level of military spending, for slowing the growth of entitlement programs (as Paul Ryan’s plan modestly tries to do), and for ending forever the defined benefit retirement plans for public employees (I would except ONLY wounded veterans, whose medical care should be covered, at almost all costs).

If things go as we hope, Romney wins, Republicans retain control of the House and get 51 seats in the Senate, things will still be very difficult for us. The Democrats will try to stop everything in the Senate by use of the filibuster. They will then demand all of their usual points to allow any legislation to go forward. Government shutdowns will loom. The media will be bashing Romney and the Republicans just like they did Bush. Will Romney and the Congressional leadership be able to withstand the barrage of hate, or will they fold and let the government continue to grow. What can the various Tea Parties do to help Romney and the Congressional leadership withstand the pressure? They will need help, as the media will try to make it appear that the populace is united against whatever action Romney and the Congressional leadership are trying to implement. Also look for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, ACORN_derivatives, Sierra Club, et. al. along with their sympathetic friends in the civil service to try to delay, obstruct, ignore, and undercut all Republican actions. Reclaiming our republican form of government under our Constitution is going to be a long hard battle against dedicated foes who will still want impose their tyranny on us.

“That is not all but it is a start. If they go off on a tangent, then we start the fight all over again until we get our government under control and the people get their country back.”

Wow, how did that email from 1958 get here?

A vote for Romney, is a vote against the Tea Party.

The Republican Party, does not deserve, to “learn”. It only understands one thing…defeat!

I accuse, any “Tea Party” person, who votes for Romney, of being a fool.

Voting for a Republican, again? Have you no knowledge of history? WILL YOU NEVER LEARN?

In truth, the Tea Party is dead. We must wait for its successor. A good try, but without it’s own party, it will always be the Republican stepchild. How many Tea Party protests do I have to attend, hearing nothing but Republican hacks and liars speak at the podium?

Any Tea Partier who votes for Romney, I accuse of cowardice. You love your country, except, not enough to make your vote COUNT. To take a stand!

If you love your country, then do not vote Republican in the Presidential! Instead, work to secure the Congress. Obama can do nothing without the Congress, remember?

Voting Republican, for a Tea Partier, is a vote from fear. Do beleive in America, or not? Will you vote your concience, or lamely lie down, yet again? Will you let your country down, just one more time?

Where have you been? Obama is doing what he pleases and throws Congress to the side. He names czars, recess appointments, spends money that isn’t appropriated.
He is immune to Congress.
Perfection is the enemy of good. Not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. Anyone thinking “we’ll show those Republicans to move to the right” and vote only for a pure libertarian is pure folly.

You get high marks for ideological purity, but a 0% for political practicality. Voting for anyone but Romney is essentially a vote for Obama. No one but Obama or Romney can win. Voting for a marginal third party candidate, be it Gary Johnson (who I probably agree with on many issues) or Rosanne Barr, while satisfying a personal need on your part, is just plain stupid. These candidates cannot possibly win, and voting for any of them helps Obama, the worst President, the most radical man ever to run the Executive branch. You might not like that. But not liking it doesn’t make it any less true, and no one can help you with anything less that these hard cold truths.

Tell yourself, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA! I WILL NOT WASTE MY VOTE by voting for some purist that would satisfy my silly naive purist ideals, but will result in a Marxist continuing in the White House. Grow TF up, man! This isn’t strictly ideology anymore. This is politics.

You obviously aren’t paying attention. Obama is “ruling” now without any Congressional input. Reid keeps producing “Continuing Resolutions” to keep the 2009 budget increases in effect. That will continue by virtue of fillibusters if the Republicans get to 51 Senators. Obama doesn’t enforce laws he doesn’t like and nothing happens. He ignores court orders and nothing happens. That will continue if he isn’t removed from office in this election.

As an Objectivist, I have always operated on the same principle has Craig Biddle is advocating. If the Republican candidate stands no chance of winning, as is often the case in Maryland where I live, I will sometimes vote for the Libertarian candidate for that office if he is a good person and if there even is such a candidate. But, if the Republican candidate is at all competitive, he is almost always better than the candidate put up by the party whose very core principle is that more and much more government is always to be desired, so I will vote for the Republican even if he is not the embodiment of an ideal politician.

Ryan answered many of the questions about his vote for tarp, the bailouts, and his tepid (by tea party standards) in an interview with Andrew Klavan. You an probably still find it on PJmedia. He admitted his vote for tarp and the bailout were mistakes. His budget proposal has many compromises in it so that he could get enough support to get it passed in the house. Now that people are waking up, his hope is to be able to move further toward smaller government.
With Ryan on the ticket, Romney is much better than GW Bush.

I will not vote for Romney. I will not vote for Ryan. I will not vote for the Republican nominee, because at this point the difference between the parties is that the Democratic party wants to enslave the nation to the government, which is unacceptable. The Republican party wants to enslave all future generations to our national debt in order to pay for the slavery that the Democrats want to institute.

Well, there only seems to be one way out of this, and it is not through election, it is through the end of the government. I am likely going to vote for Obama on the hope that the the government will fail to be able to pay for all its promised slavery enhancing initiatives and implode, allowing a new government to be formed.

I am all for Cloward Pivon (or what ever their names were) in destroying the institution by using the institution beyond its ability to function.

What in the bloody hell makes you think a post-apocalyptic America will be rebuilt under a model you like more than the one we’re trying to save?

You’d almost have to be a utopian Collectivist to believe the likelihood of a better outcome is high.Now that I think of it, you’re probably really just a closet Democrat, fellow Marxist, traveling along the road with your fellow Obamanites, and chumming the waters of PJ Media for grins.

Not really, just have to be someone who thinks that people should pay their own way through life and not live off the wages of someone else’s labor through force. No longer going to support the Republicans until they get this aspect of conservatism back into their lexicon.

The article makes its point okay, but then it all of a sudden at the very end says that one ticket advances freedom far more than the other. romney advances freedom? not in massachusetts. not even for boy scouts! Robme is Nixon on steroids! We’ve already been shown how all the good guys have been left out of the speakers corner all of a sudden. Robme is not even a gentleman, but has to vindictively leave out Sarah Palin, who was after all the previous VP selection; she should be speaking ….for what she has done for the party members, but Preibus and Madden have made the convention theme “Robme shows his enemies the hammock under the bus,” but maybe once again (2008) he seals his own destruction. under the bus Sarah is safe, while Robme tilts at hurricanes …finding out he doesn’t have a chance in hell against them, nor against He who threw them at him!

Romney may not want people to know that Bain owned a company called Stericycle that disposed of aborted fetuses. Although some say that Romney severed ties with Bain in 2002, Bain went on to haul in huge profits from Stericycle’s disposal of aborted babies from 2002-2004 while Romney was governor. I speculate that at least some of the paperwork that Romney destroyed while he was governor may have documented Romney’s involvement in coordinating state funded abortions in Romneycare. Did Bain-owned Stericycle profit in any way from any legislation that Romney may have enacted or coordinated between 2002-2004?http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec

Neither Romney nor Ryan are true Conservatives because they will not support our return to the limits our Founding Fathers placed on national government with the Constitution Article I, Section 8 and the limiting clauses. It will take 50-75 years to move us back to the limits of the Constitution and change to voters minds from “bring home the bacon” to “no bacon please”.

When VOTERS’ understand our national government is broken, including DOD and it can never be repaired, things will change. It is mainly due to the quality of the employees we are allowed to hire. I worked for DOD fire protection for 30-years and we had to hire on diversity and prior military however, there was no requirement they could do the jobs or had the ability to learn. They must hire on knowledge, skills, and abilities and not because of the color of ones skin or their recruitment effort to hire Muslims.

Sorry… I’m writing in Ron Paul, not my fault Mitt can’t see all the trees in the forest. If this means BO gets back in, so be it, this country is already shot to hell and there is no way the deficit will EVER be paid… so BO will get us to a revolution faster than Mitt and that my friends is what this country needs, RADICAL CHANGE back to what we had in the BEGINNING. Remember the road to this hell was paved with government programs we all let happen because we all forgot how to STAND FOR FREEDOM! Oh forefathers I am personally so sorry for what we have done and become… shame… shame on all of us.

It saddens me to see so many people here that would rather see the country collapse sooner rather than later by not voting for Romney. I remember when Carter was president. We had double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates. I thought that there was no way to recover back then. Reagan was far from perfect, but still was able to turn things around enough to keep the country from collapse. Romney and Ryan are the only chance we have right now to avert a collapse (even if it is a slim chance). Then we can push to scale back government to where it should be one step at a time. Look at history. When countries collapse, it invariably results in tyrannic dictatorships and much bloodshed. Do you really want to wish that on your children? I for one do not.

It saddens me far more to see so many people who are so selfish that instead of paying for their own way, they would rather put the burden of paying for their lives on the backs of other people’s children, many of whom are not even born, let alone able to defend themselves from this kind of slavery.

Far too many “conservatives” have determined that they are OWED the Wealth of those future American Citizens because, well, they paid taxes for the last umpteen years.

It took 100 years to implement the socialist state. It’s not going to be dismantled in 4, or 8 or 20 years.

One of the most irritating conceits of liberals is that they don’t look at the outcomes, they focus on how a government program makes them feel. The “War on Poverty” makes them feel “compassionate.” Who cares if it has trapped millions in the inner city?

Similiarly, the “true” conservatives will sit home in November, or write in someone with no chance of winning because it will make them feel all noble and righteous. Nevermind the results, if Obama gets in and appoints more left-wing justices and judges. “But Romney would have been almost as bad! I’m pure!”

Leftists and these so-called “true” conservatives – brothers under the skin. Really, I see no difference.

I don’t think the Tea Party membership is a narrow minded as the article seems to imply. I feel most TP members will be quite happy with the Romney-Ryan ticket, and certainly can understand the choices in this election. As to applying the concept of “Objectivism” to a politician as a litmus test, I’m sorry to say any Objectivist doing so is dreaming. First of all, how many voters even know anything about it? So small a percentage, you can’t expect a politician to pander to the group. If want an Objectivist to win an election you need to educate a lot of people to even understand it. Bottom line, you vote for Romney-Ryan because being an Objectivist also mean you’re rational and you do not want Obama and the democrats to win. Objectism, in the meantime, should be taught in schools. Find a way.

Where does all of this animosity towards Tea Partiers come from? It was not a Tea Partier that wrote this snotty blog or suggested that someone STFU. Obama is going to lose BIG and the ones who are the wusses are the shushers who want everyone to be quiet become like Democrats.

Real individualists don’t do well with “talking points”. We don’t need nor will we acquiesce to those who want us to toe the line. But, we are going to defeat Obama and the Democrats this fall. Then, we are coming after whatever corrupt and unprincipled Republicans that are left over. It’s not too late for any of them to save themselves. All they have to do is adhere to the principles they claim to represent. How hard is that?

Well, Sarah Palin supported Jeff Flake in Arizona over Will Condgren. Will was the candidate supported by the Tea Party. Flake with Gutierrez wanted to legalized lots of illegal immigrants in 2007. Sarah is not so against the Republican leadership as some Tea Party people think. I lived in Arizona and know the truth.